• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Jonas Mahonas

Is Hughes > or = to Gudreau

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AtlantaHotWings said:

Finishing last actually does guarantee you at least a top 4 pick cause you can only drop 3 spots down so they are already technically wrong in their statement that there is no guarantee of a top pick. 

It doesn't however guarantee you the FIRST pick but does increase your odds of getting a pick between 1 - 3 so if they are referring to STRICTLY the first pick they are technically correct.  Just because you have the best odds you still can lose. See my record at the casinos when the odds were in my favor till that last @#$@!$ card.

If you told me that those lottery tickets at a minimum are giving me the 4th prize of 500 and increase my odds to get the Mega/1 million/10K prizes I would grab that "guarantee" in a heartbeat at a minimum I have gotten a decent payoff. Also cause my momma didn't raise me to be stupid. 

So I pledge not to use guarantee till after the draft....

If you're playing a game of chance, there is never a scenario in which giving yourself the best possible odds isn't your best bet.  With or without a guarantee.  In hockey terms, that means that if you aren't realistically competing for the Cup, finishing closer to dead last is always the best possible outcome for your future regardless of whether you end up with the 1st pick or the 4th or the 10th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Aside from Patrick Kane, who's another tier better than Gaudreau, none of these little wingers are tipping the scales for Cup contenders.

I think you're being obstinate. I know where you're coming from and I don't *entirely* disagree, but I think you're being obstinate.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about Hughes versus a ton of big-bodied, blindingly awesome pure centermen. But that's not really the case.

  • Newhook is 5'11 and I could easily see him becoming a winger at the NHL level. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Krebs is 5'11 and he's played both center and wing. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Turcotte is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Trevor Zegras is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Bobby Brink is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Cozens is currently #3 on my top 10 list, but I and most others feel he's a couple tiers below Hughes.
  • Dach, like Cozens, has great size -- but I and many others are cooling on him, for various reasons. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Ryan Suzuki hasn't really impressed me. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Matthew Boldy is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Arthur Kaliev is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Vasili Podkolzin is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Most see Raphael Lavoie as a winger at the NHL level. A big part of that is his iffy skating. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Kakko is a winger who might be able to play center at the NHL level. I could possibly be persuaded that Kakko should go 1st overall, because he's a big man who's doing well against men and he's arguably more complete than Hughes.
  • There are no clearly-incredible defensemen in this draft class.
  • I could go on.

I really don't think the Wings should be looking at positions of need with their first pick. Because, for the Wings, every position is a position of need.

I'm all about having great center depth, but not one of the non-Hughes centermen in this draft class is a better prospect than Hughes (who isn't necessarily going to be a winger at the NHL level). I get that trading the 1st overall pick would mean, in theory, we'd be getting a Dylan Cozens AND other stuff, but the other stuff would have to be unequivocally too-good-to-refuse for me to bite on it. Hughes is a truly exceptional talent. This isn't a Nico Hischier we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I think you're being obstinate. I know where you're coming from and I don't *entirely* disagree, but I think you're being obstinate.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about Hughes versus a ton of big-bodied, blindingly awesome pure centermen. But that's not really the case.

  • Newhook is 5'11 and I could easily see him becoming a winger at the NHL level. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Krebs is 5'11 and he's played both center and wing. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Turcotte is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Trevor Zegras is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Bobby Brink is 5'11. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Cozens is currently #3 on my top 10 list, but I and most others feel he's a couple tiers below Hughes.
  • Dach, like Cozens, has great size -- but I and many others are cooling on him, for various reasons. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Ryan Suzuki hasn't really impressed me. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Matthew Boldy is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Arthur Kaliev is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Vasili Podkolzin is a winger. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Most see Raphael Lavoie as a winger at the NHL level. A big part of that is his iffy skating. Hughes is the better prospect.
  • Kakko is a winger who might be able to play center at the NHL level. I could possibly be persuaded that Kakko should go 1st overall, because he's a big man who's doing well against men and he's arguably more complete than Hughes.
  • There are no clearly-incredible defensemen in this draft class.
  • I could go on.

I really don't think the Wings should be looking at positions of need with their first pick. Because, for the Wings, every position is a position of need.

I'm all about having great center depth, but not one of the non-Hughes centermen in this draft class is a better prospect than Hughes (who isn't necessarily going to be a winger at the NHL level). I get that trading the 1st overall pick would mean, in theory, we'd be getting a Dylan Cozens AND other stuff, but the other stuff would have to be unequivocally too-good-to-refuse for me to bite on it. Hughes is a truly exceptional talent. This isn't a Nico Hischier we're talking about.

The premise of the thread was "What if Hughes turns out to be as good, or better, than Gaudreau".  So that's what I'm basing this off of.  There's pretty wide variation just in that though, basically you're saying that Gaudreau is his floor and he might be better than that even.  But what's the upper limit?  I'm sure we'll all agree he's probably not going to be a Crosby or McDavid or Matthews.  So we're talking about someone in the middle somewhere between Gaudreau and say, Kane?  Well, if my scouts assess that he's more likely to be a Kane than a Gaudreau then I'd probably draft him.  If my scouts assess he's more likely to be a Gaudreau then I'd trade back and take the extra stuff because as you've correctly pointed out, we need everything.  There's risk involved in every transaction.  Do I want to bet on Hughes being as good as Kane, or Cozens being as good as Barkov (just for instance)?  Personally, I'd be more likely to bet on the latter considering I'd be getting additional assets (via trading back) to do so.

Edit: At the end of the day, my point is that having the single best player doesn't necessarily mean you'll have the better team.  And it's hard to even say who the single best player will turn out to be when kids are 17 and 18.  For the purposes of argument, all things being equal I'd rather have Zetterberg AND Kronwall than Datsyuk if I'm a GM. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

The premise of the thread was "What if Hughes turns out to be as good, or better, than Gaudreau".  So that's what I'm basing this off of.  There's pretty wide variation just in that though, basically you're saying that Gaudreau is his floor and he might be better than that even.  But what's the upper limit?  I'm sure we'll all agree he's probably not going to be a Crosby or McDavid or Matthews.  So we're talking about someone in the middle somewhere between Gaudreau and say, Kane?  Well, if my scouts assess that he's more likely to be a Kane than a Gaudreau then I'd probably draft him.  If my scouts assess he's more likely to be a Gaudreau then I'd trade back and take the extra stuff because as you've correctly pointed out, we need everything.  There's risk involved in every transaction.  Do I want to bet on Hughes being as good as Kane, or Cozens being as good as Barkov (just for instance)?  Personally, I'd be more likely to bet on the latter considering I'd be getting additional assets (via trading back) to do so. 

I dunno, this just strikes me as suicidal overthinking. Like I said, I'd definitely be looking to trade back if our first pick falls outside of the top two. But if it's one of the top two picks? I take Hughes or Kakko. I take them because they're at least a tier above everyone else and, accordingly, are the best bets for "future gamechanging talent."

Take Hughes/Kakko and cash in the nine or so other picks that we'll have at our disposal. Maybe use some of those picks to move into the middle of the 1st round, so we get Hughes and possibly also snag a guy like Newhook. That's what I'd be angling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm not talking about trading back to take anyone other than Cozens.  He's the consensus 3rd overall pick.  So it's not like there's a ton of risk there.  And just because Hughes is a tier higher now doesn't mean that's how he'll end up.  I mean, there are some pretty serious question marks about him too (which everyone is happy to ignore).  He's never played against men, he's never been hit really hard by an adult, he's never played an NHL system (which discourages circling and puck holding).  Each year there's some kid who's supposed to be WAY better than his peers, and as often as not the gap between the 1st overall and the 3rd or 4th overall closes over the course of their NHL careers.  I'm not convinced that Hughes is in the McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin, Matthews class.  And I'm also not convinced that Cozens couldn't turn into a Barkov, or McKinnon, or Seguin.  There are plenty of reasons to draft Hughes, but I don't think it's absurd to consider trading back a few spots for a kid who is still probably going to be a VERY good player as well as some other stuff that could help a rebuilding team. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AtlantaHotWings said:

Agreed finishing 31st doesn't guarantee 1st pick but the furthest we can go down is 4th?

So 31st is a good guarantee of a decent pick. 

So go with that scenario that we are 31st but secure the 4th pick so do you grab the BPA or trade down for a 10 - 20 pick and a young defenseman that has potential 

Always BPA. I think teams do worse in drafts when they go with need over talent. Arizona did that last draft and I think they'll regret it.

BTW, if Hughes is available when the Wings pick, you take him. There isn't anyone else in his tier in this draft. Some good players, yes, but anyone else would be a step down, even if it's a position of need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year the Wings took BPA, and everyone gushed over the pick.  Zadina and Svech were considered a tier above every other player (aside from Dahlin). How are we all feeling about that pick right now?  People act like this stuff is a science and it really isn't.  The best player (whatever that means to you) doesn't always equate to the best team.  Jack Eichel plays for a better team than Connor McDavid right? Brian Trottier has more Cups than Gretzky or Lemieux. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

To be clear, I'm not talking about trading back to take anyone other than Cozens.  He's the consensus 3rd overall pick.

I wouldn't say Cozens is the consensus 3rd overall pick tho. Once you get past Hughes and Kakko, things get murky.

I've seen Cozens play. He's a tremendous prospect, but I don't put him on the same level as Hughes. Cozens could end up being the better NHLer, but I wouldn't bet on it.

8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

So it's not like there's a ton of risk there.  And just because Hughes is a tier higher now doesn't mean that's how he'll end up.  I mean, there are some pretty serious question marks about him too (which everyone is happy to ignore).  He's never played against men, he's never been hit really hard by an adult, he's never played an NHL system (which discourages circling and puck holding).  Each year there's some kid who's supposed to be WAY better than his peers, and as often as not the gap between the 1st overall and the 3rd or 4th overall closes over the course of their NHL careers.  I'm not convinced that Hughes is in the McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin, Matthews class.  And I'm also not convinced that Cozens couldn't turn into a Barkov, or McKinnon, or Seguin.  There are plenty of reasons to draft Hughes, but I don't think it's absurd to consider trading back a few spots for a kid who is still probably going to be a VERY good player as well as some other stuff that could help a rebuilding team. 

Seems like you simply don't like Hughes all that much and you do like Cozens a whole lot. Which is fine. I just think you're overthinking this and trying to rationalize decisions that we know no GM would make. The team that gets the 1st overall pick is taking Hughes (or *MAYBE* Kakko). Will that be the right call? Time will tell. Is it the most sensible call for a team that desperately needs a gamebreaking talent? I would say so. Cozens' passing is iffy and I've seen him easily stripped of the puck -- same as AA. I really don't know that I can say he's definitely a centerman in the NHL. All of which wouldn't bother me too much if I felt his raw talent was right there with Hughes' raw talent. But I don't think it is.

Cozens has very real top-line potential. Hughes will be considered a disappointment if he doesn't become an unholy terror at the NHL level. Those two assessments might not sound different, but they are. The gulf between these two players is pretty wide. Nothing's guaranteed, but, in saying that, I think you go with the guy for whom all signs point to greatness. If we're deferring to scouts' opinions...my impression is pretty much everyone has Hughes as the #1 guy in this draft class...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

Aside from Patrick Kane, who's another tier better than Gaudreau, none of these little wingers are tipping the scales for Cup contenders.  And it's not even like Kane didn't have obscene amounts of talent surrounding him.  Mitch Marner is little and lighting the world on fire right now, but it's not a coincidence that he finally did so once Tavares was his center.  Point is, they're good players.  Really good in fact.  But when I look back at the last 10-15 years of Cup winners I see the same basic formula; great centers, great top four defense, and excellent coaching.  Hell, it took the addition of Kuznetsov to put Washington over the hump and they had arguable the greatest winger in history there for 14 years.  If Kakko can and does play center too (which I've heard) then I'd rather have him as well.  Point is, really great wingers tend not to matter that much at the playoff level without really great centers.  We don't have really great centers.  Larkin is very good, its a stretch to think Veleno will be even that good, and we've got nobody after that.  Put Patrick Laine on our team, with our current crop of centers and we'd still get smashed.  I just don't see Hughes making that big a difference. 

At the end of the day, I guess I think we're a better team two years from now with our current wingers and better centers than we are with our current centers and better wingers. If Hughes projects as a long term elite center than the point is moot.  If not, then I'd pass and take a guy who does. 

Do you think it's more likely that Marner is having a breakout year at 21 because of Tavares, or that Tavares is having a career year at 28 because of Marner? I personally think it's the latter. Centers can make wingers, but wingers can make centers as well. Larkin is a high-end center at nearly a point per game. I think he would have another 15+ points right now if he had an elite player like Marner on his wing. I think Hughes has the potential to be as good as Marner for sure, and I'll take a player with that ability any day.

I think Larkin is borderline elite, and definitely a 1C. Veleno probably won't be that good, but we don't necessarily need him to be. I still think he will be a very good 2C though.

A lot of the smaller guys I've mentioned are either elite, or on the cusp (still very young). I get that you're not that high on Hughes, I just want to know your reasoning. To me, every part of his game screams game breaker. Kid has been breaking records previously held by the likes of Patrick Kane and Auston Matthews...

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I agree that you should take the person you assess to be the best player available, but "best" can be defined a lot of ways and it's not always so easy to pin down.  For instance, Miro Heiskenen is probably the "best" player to come out of the 2017 draft but nobody said so on draft day.  They were too busy gushing over Nolan Patrick and Nico Hischier.  It's not always clear cut who's the best. Secondly, people on hockey teams do different jobs.  So it's not always easy to compare.  Is an 80 point winger  better than a 70 point center?  I'd probably rather have the center to be honest.  He certainly will effect the game more. 

Maybe Jack Hughes is sooooooo good that it's all a moot point (though I'm skeptical).  Or maybe he'll play center and it won't matter.  But if Jack Hughes projects to be as good as Gaudreau (as in the OP) and Cozens projects to be as good as Jason Spezza or Ryan Getzlaf (just for example), I think I'd rather have Cozens. 

I agree with this. However, I think its much more likely that Hughes becomes a Gaudreau or Marner (or better), than it is that Cozens becomes a Spezza or Getzlaf, and this coming from a huge Cozens fan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Last year the Wings took BPA, and everyone gushed over the pick.  Zadina and Svech were considered a tier above every other player (aside from Dahlin). How are we all feeling about that pick right now?  People act like this stuff is a science and it really isn't.  The best player (whatever that means to you) doesn't always equate to the best team.  Jack Eichel plays for a better team than Connor McDavid right? Brian Trottier has more Cups than Gretzky or Lemieux. 

You're kinda strawmanning now.

Dahlin was considered the best player in the draft and he's doing very well for himself in his rookie season. Svechnikov was rated below Dahlin and above everyone else. Zadina hasn't performed the way we'd hoped, but, if anything, I think you're actually arguing in favor of NOT trading back to get Cozens. Because you're right: drafting isn't a science, it's mostly voodoo. But, generally speaking, the first couple of players off the board in a draft are the money guys. Beyond that, it's basically a crapshoot. That being said, I wouldn't have passed on Dahlin for Kotkaniemi (+) or Tkachuk (+) or Zadina (+), and I wouldn't pass on Hughes for Cozens (+) or Dach (+) or Newhook (+).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dabura said:

I wouldn't say Cozens is the consensus 3rd overall pick tho. Once you get past Hughes and Kakko, things get murky.

I've seen Cozens play. He's a tremendous prospect, but I don't put him on the same level as Hughes. Cozens could end up being the better NHLer, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Seems like you simply don't like Hughes all that much and you do like Cozens a whole lot. Which is fine. I just think you're overthinking this and trying to rationalize decisions that we know no GM would make. The team that gets the 1st overall pick is taking Hughes (or *MAYBE* Kakko). Will that be the right call? Time will tell. Is it the most sensible call for a team that desperately needs a gamebreaking talent? I would say so. Cozens' passing is iffy and I've seen him easily stripped of the puck -- same as AA. I really don't know that I can say he's definitely a centerman in the NHL. All of which wouldn't bother me too much if I felt his raw talent was right there with Hughes' raw talent. But I don't think it is.

Cozens has very real top-line potential. Hughes will be considered a disappointment if he doesn't become an unholy terror at the NHL level. Those two assessments might not sound different, but they are. The gulf between these two players is pretty wide. Nothing's guaranteed, but, in saying that, I think you go with the guy for whom all signs point to greatness. If we're deferring to scouts' opinions...my impression is pretty much everyone has Hughes as the #1 guy in this draft class...

It's not that I "like" either player better.  It's that I am not sure that Hughes (or Gaudreau) is necessarily as good as everyone says he is (especially at the NHL level), and I think centers are more important than wingers.  So if, as the original post suggested, Hughes is going to turn out as a 75 pt. winger I'd rather trade back and look for a top line center (which I think Cozens will be given his skill set).  If, on the other hand, Hughes is more likely to turn out like Kane or Kucherov then I'd probably draft him despite the fact that he's a winger.  But again, at the end of the day I'm WAY more comfortable with our current wingers and better centers than I am with better wingers and our current centers.  It's probably the one thing I agree with Babcock on, centers have a far greater impact on the game then wingers do. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

It's not that I "like" either player better.  It's that I am not sure that Hughes is as good as everyone makes him out to be (especially at the NHL level), and I think centers are more important than wingers.  So if, as the original post suggested, Hughes is going to turn out as a 75 pt. winger I'd rather trade back and look for a top line center (which I think Cozens will be given his skill set).  If, on the other hand, Hughes is more likely to turn out like Kane or Kucherov then I'd probably draft him despite the fact that he's a winger.  But again, at the end of the day I'm WAY more comfortable with our current wingers and better centers than I am with better wingers and our current centers.  It's probably the one thing I agree with Babcock on, centers have a far greater impact on the game then wingers do. 

Hughes is the best prospect and he's the safest bet for a gamebreaking talent. Kakko's the possible exception. Everyone not named Hughes or Kakko is more of a long shot, including Cozens. We need a gamebreaking talent, so I submit that, yes, the decision is actually a very easy one: with the 1st overall pick, you take Hughes (or maybe Kakko). Maybe your hypothetical scouts tell you Cozens-->Barkov is more likely than Hughes-->Kane, but this feels to me like mental masturbation that's only serving to overcomplicate a simple matter. (Then again, this whole discussion is mental masturbation.)

Also, if you think it's that important that we get a centerman over a winger, you have to consider the possibility that [insert non-Hughes centerman you love] isn't necessarily going to be a centerman. I'd also consider the possibility that Hughes is a centerman at the NHL level.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it. I think we simply disagree on a couple things and we're not likely to change our minds in the context of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Hughes is the best prospect and he's the safest bet for a gamebreaking talent. Kakko's the possible exception. Everyone not named Hughes or Kakko is more of a long shot, including Cozens. We need a gamebreaking talent, so I submit that, yes, the decision is actually a very easy one: with the 1st overall pick, you take Hughes (or maybe Kakko). Maybe your hypothetical scouts tell you Cozens-->Barkov is more likely than Hughes-->Kane, but this feels to me like mental masturbation that's only serving to overcomplicate a simple matter. (Then again, this whole discussion is mental masturbation.)

Also, if you think it's that important that we get a centerman over a winger, you have to consider the possibility that [insert non-Hughes centerman you love] isn't necessarily going to be a centerman. I'd also consider the possibility that Hughes is a centerman at the NHL level.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it. I think we simply disagree on a couple things and we're not likely to change our minds in the context of this discussion.

I'm not sold on the "he's going to be a winger" thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

I'm not sold on the "he's going to be a winger" thing. 

I'd say the biggest things working against him there are 1) he's not very good on the defensive side of the puck, and 2) he's not a physical player. Moving over to the wing would, in theory, free him up to really play to his strengths.

On the other hand, he's such a gifted player (skating, playmaking, etc.) that I won't be surprised if he does become an NHL centerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 11:50 AM, Jonas Mahonas said:

I'm glad we didn't declare Larkin a first round bust because he played a year at Michigan!

I'd love to be wrong... but his play validates what I've seem of him in Junior and his drop in the draft.  At best I think he'll be a regular with a few good years... IE Vanek.  At worst it'll be another tale of a first round nothing.  Time will tell.  But I'm confident in my assessment.  I'd far rather be the Isles who drafted Walstrom and Dobson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mackel said:

I'd love to be wrong... but his play validates what I've seem of him in Junior and his drop in the draft.  At best I think he'll be a regular with a few good years... IE Vanek.  At worst it'll be another tale of a first round nothing.  Time will tell.  But I'm confident in my assessment.  I'd far rather be the Isles who drafted Walstrom and Dobson. 

I'm with you.  I knew there was a reason he fell.  No wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mackel said:

I'd love to be wrong... but his play validates what I've seem of him in Junior and his drop in the draft.  At best I think he'll be a regular with a few good years... IE Vanek.  At worst it'll be another tale of a first round nothing.  Time will tell.  But I'm confident in my assessment.  I'd far rather be the Isles who drafted Walstrom and Dobson. 

2018-19 6.png Boston College NCAA 14 4 1 5 12 0

The Oliver Wahlstrom with this stat line? If Zadina's already a bust I'm not sure how Wahlstrom isn't as well in your eyes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wheelchairsuperhero said:
2018-19 6.png Boston College NCAA 14 4 1 5 12 0

The Oliver Wahlstrom with this stat line? If Zadina's already a bust I'm not sure how Wahlstrom isn't as well in your eyes. 

I made no prediction about Walstrom... please don't make assumptions on my behalf.   I did say I'd rather have those 2 players...  a forward that may pan out, and a defenceman that looks to be on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mackel said:

I made no prediction about Walstrom... please don't make assumptions on my behalf.   I did say I'd rather have those 2 players...  a forward that may pan out, and a defenceman that looks to be on track.

Isles got a forward who isn't performing any better than Zadina and a defenseman who's performing well. Wings got Zadina, who isn't performing any worse than Wahlstrom, and a centerman who's performing well.

Just saying. If we're comparing the two organizations' respective 2018 1st-round selections, it's not Zadina versus Wahlstrom + Dobson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this